Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK
Ah, I see what I did. I linked a Sandrag post to Cory due to the 254/968 alliance by mistake
|
JesseK, please slow down for a minute. If you're going to mention something someone said, please quote it. Thus far, I have made no mention of VRC in this thread. Also, please remember, a person's own views may or may not relate to their team's views. Additionally, please be careful in associating people with one another. We are all individuals, entitled to our individual opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manoel
Engineering still can't beat Physics! There's only some much weight to remove from the minibot, so it may eventually come down to, as someone pointed out, to whoever has the fullest battery or, completely ridiculous, who got lucky and received the slightly better spec'ed motor from the assembly line...
|
This is exactly the point that I believe many of the well-established and well-respected members of this forum have been trying to get across, but may not have explicitly stated.
With a solid understanding of the physics and engineering principals associated with the MINIBOT challenge, the possible design solutions converge to
one winning concept. There is no lateral design freedom. In FRC, you can have multiple robots that are constructed entirely differently that all play the game equally well. Such is not the case with this new MINIBOT challenge.
Assuming the designers have done the math, and built it accordingly, (two very big assumptions) it essentially becomes a game of luck.
I've thought more about it, and I don't have a fundamental problem with the new restrictions. Why? I don't think most teams have a solid enough grasp on the physics and engineering involved. Those who do will succeed. However, it still may become a game of luck (battery voltage, motor manufacturing tolerance, frictional variations, etc) between the top teams on Einstein.